Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-04-16 ,/' - . -- SEJI' BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENrA\ City Councll Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California \ \ 7'he Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. fihen you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commission. - If you wish to address the Commission on matters other than public hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address .the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stati13{1 your name and address first. April 16. 1986 SEXT RESOLUTION _1422 1. el~~g~_~!_~ll~gl~n~~ 2. R~lL~~H 3. R~2~~1_!~~m_~~~~~1~~~ 4. ~~n~~nl_~~l~n~~~ A. Minutes of February 19. 1986 B. Minutes of March 5. 1986 C. Minutes of April 2. 1986 D. el~n_R!~l~~_l~=!! (Stocktonl 316 15th Street A request for a portico addition to a non- conforming single-family residence loca~ed at 316 15th Street. E. el~n_R!~l~~_l!=!! (Beckerl 217 Central Avenue A request for a carport addition to a non- conforming single-family residence. 5. fY~!l~_R~~~lng! A. Y~~l~n~~_l=!! Resolution #1410 (Continued from April 2. 19861 A request to: 11 Make structural improvements and additions to a non-conforming building. 21 Provide less tha~ the required park1ng. 31 Not prOVide a loading zone. 41 Allow the construction of a new addition to be located witin a required sideyard setback. Code Sections: 28-1402. 28-2311. 28-1403. 28-2500 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15301(el). Applicant: Tom Schuveiller/Brian Kyle ,/ , . Planning Commission Agenda April 18. 1988 Page 2 B. Y~r!!n~~_!=!! (Marsh) 209 14th Street Resolution #1418 A request car garage .setback to of the lot more than 2 to consider a variance fo~ a tandem" 2 with less than the required sideyard a minimum of 3 feet on the north side and an entry stairway whieb projects feet into a required sideyard setback. Code Sections: 28-2500, 28-801 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environemntal Review [California Government Code Section 15303]. Applicant: Louis H. Marsh Owner: Same C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8-88. 9-88 Resolution 1419 YAR!AB~I_~=!! 1420 & 1421 909 Ocean Ave. (Senor Corky's) A request to permit a restaurant with a take-out counter, less than the required parking, and an entertainment cafe license for live jazz music. - Code Sections: 28-1300(8)(b). 28-1304. 28- 1300(81(il. 28-2500. 28-2503 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA Review [California Government Code Section 15081(d)]. Applicant: Corky Gill (Corky Corpsl Owner: Same 8. ~~h~~Y!!~_~~!!!rI A. Review of CUP 18-84 (Hennessey's) 7. ~~!!!~~!~n_R~~Y~~!~ 8. Qr!!_~~!!Yn!~!!!~n~_fr2m_!h!_AY~!!n~! 9. ~~m!!~~!~n_~~mmBn!~!!!~n~ 10. Agj~Brnm!n! Agenda Forecast: Al!r!L!!..._!!!h -Variance 8-88. CUP 11-88 Donnelson - 148 7th Street -Study session on Conditional Use Permit Requirements for on-site and off-site liquor sales. - -- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 16, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:37 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Hunt led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Absent: Commissioner Covington Mr. Covington arrived at the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. Also present: Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services REPORT FROM SECRETARY The Director advised there were no items to report at this time. . CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "A" THROUGH "E" Commissioner Perrin requested that the Commission minutes, items "A, B, and C", be considered separately as certain members of the Commission were not present for all meetings, and advised that he would abstain from acting upon Plan Review 13-86 due to a potential conflict of interest. ITEM "A" - MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1986 Commissioner Ripperdan advised that he was absent from the February 19th meeting however the minutes reflect that he led the Salute to the Flag, and requested that correction be made. Hunt moved, second by Jessner, to approve the February 19, 1986 minutes as corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hunt, Jessner None Perrin, Ripperdan Covington Motion carried f ITEM "B" - MINUTES - MARCH 5, 1986 In response to Chairman Jessner, the staff advised that the sequence of discussion under the Consent Calendar was correct. Chairman Jessner requested that the last sentence of the first paragraph on page eight of the minutes be corrected to read "Chairman Jessner, with Commission concurrence, directed staff to make this a part of the study" on height and bulk limitations in the R-2 and R-3 Zones. Hunt moved, second by Ripperdan, to approve the March 5th Commission minutes as corrected. -- Page Two - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Covington Motion carried ITEM "C" - MINUTES - APRIL 2, 1986 Chairman Jessner referred to page four of the April 2nd minutes, advising that it was his recollection that the vote on the motion to continue the hearing on Variance 1-86 (1500 Pacific Coast Highway) did not take place until after the discussion as set forth in the subsequent two paragraphs. Hunt moved, second by Perrin, to approve the minutes of the April 2nd Commission meeting as corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hunt, Jessner, Perrin None Ripperdan Covington Motion carried ITEM "D" - PLAN REVIEW 13-86 - STOCKTON - 316 - 15th STREET Hunt moved, second by Ripperdan, to approve Plan Review 13-86, a request for a portico addition to a non-conforming single family residence located at 316 - 15th Street, as recommended by staff. . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Hunt, Jessner, Ripperdan None Perrin Covington Motion carried ITEM "E" - PLAN REVIEW 12-86 - BECKER - 217 CENTRAL AVENUE Hunt moved, second by Jessner, to approve Plan Review 12-86, a request for a carport addition to a non-conforming single family residence, as resubmitted. Commissioner Perrin referred to a recently constructed single family residence on a double lot at 315 - 16th Street, noting that it was his understanding that in that particular case the staff is requiring that the fence be relocated further from the alley, and expressed his concern with relinquishing that amount of square footage for parking or to accommodate a line of site. The Director explained that current Code requires a nine foot setback from the property line, and advised that the location of the fence on a number of properties has resulted in those properties being non-conforming with regard to setback requirements. Commissioner Perrin indicated he would support an amendment of the Code with regard to such setback requirements. t Mr. Greg Williams, 12200 Montecito Road, addressed the Commission on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Frank Becker, noting considerable discussion of this matter at the previous meeting. He advised the Commission that the subject property is currently in escrow awaiting a decision on the carport Page Three - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . request, and reported that Mr. Becker had requested approval of this matter, as presented, at this meeting. Vote on the motion to approve Plan Review 12-86: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Covington Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 1-86 - KYLE - 1500 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The Chairman reported that the applicant had requested a continuance of this matter until the next meeting. The Director advised that the staff would concur with the request, noting that the additional research and report requested of the City Attorney has not yet been received. Hunt moved, second by Perrin, to continue this matter until the next regular meeting, May 7th. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Covington Motion carried Commissioner Covington arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. . PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 4-86 - MARSH - 209 - 14th STREET The Director presented the staff report relating to a request for several variances in connection with the construction of a new two-story single family dwelling on a triangular parcel of land one hundred feet in depth with approximately forty feet of frontage on Fourteenth Street and approximately ten feet of frontage on the rear alleyway. The Director stated that after review of the application, staff would recommend approval of the use of tandem parking, and a uniform three foot setback, Code minimum, on the north of the property, however would recommend denial of the ground level entry stairway encroachment into the southerly sideyard setback, which would project into the sideyard more than the two feet allowed by Code, this having been determined to be a self-imposed hardship which could be corrected through redesign. , Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. Louise Marsh, 17701 Avalon Boulevard, Carson, applicant and owner of the property located at 209 - 14th Street, stated that the plans for the subject property have been further reviewed and alternatives for entry have been proposed that will cQmply with the City's requirements, therefore she would concur with staff's recommendations. Mr. P. J. Collins, 311 - 15th Street, the applicant's 'contractor, confirmed that the plans have been revised to allow entry into the house without the stairway encroaching into the sideyard setback. Mrs. Georgiana Brown, 212 - 14th Street, stated she resides directly across from the proposed dwelling, and that she felt that approval of tandem parking was inappropriate, historically not allowed in the Page Four - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . City, that such approval encourages future illegal uses, and that parking could be provided adjacent to the alley. Mrs. Brown inquired if reduction of the northerly setback meets City requirements. The Director responded that as redesigned, the proposed dwelling does meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. With regard to tandem parking, the Commission clarified that such use has been approved on two previous occasions due to the unusual configuration of those particular properties in order to accommodate the required parking, however has not been approved for properties of standard size and shape. Mr. Olin Pate, 137 - 12th Street, referred to the great number of persons that use their garage for a purpose other than vehicle parking, and spoke in support of adding parking spaces wherever possible, the configuration being of no great importance. Mr. Sven Lindstrom, 215 - 14th Street, advised that he has tandem parking on his property, within a garage and accommodating four vehicles, and spoke in support of any Commission action to encourage off-street parking. There being no further comments, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. . In response to the Commission, the Director advised that this request for tandem parking clearly meets the legal criteria for granting of a variance due to the size and shape of the property. Covington moved, second by Perrin, to approve Variance 4-86 for the use of tandem parking, and a uniform three foot setback on the north side of the lot, and that the requested ground level entry stairway be denied, the conditions to be set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 1418. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8-86 and 9-86 - VARIANCE 5-86 - SENOR CORKY'S - 909 OCEAN AVENUE The Director reported that the applicant, Mark Gill and Corky Corp, are requesting the reestablishment of a restaurant at 909 Ocean Avenue. Mr. Baucke explained that the applicant is specifically requesting Variance 5-86 to allow the reestablishment of a restaurant with less than the required parking, Conditional Use Permit 8-86 to allow the reestablishment of a take-out counter operation, and Conditional Use Permit 9-86 to allow the reestablishment of an entertainment cafe with live jazz music. I The Director noted considerable discussion has taken place regarding parking for downtown commercial properties, specifically referring to the City Council's adoption of policy statements recommended by the Downtown Task Force and direction to staff to implement those recommendations, also that good faith efforts to provide parking in the commercial district be taken into consideration. He reported that the applicant has submitted a parking plan to provide ten diagonal on-site parking spaces to be accomplished by the removal of an existing storage structure and providing forty percent, rather than Page Five - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . twenty-five percent, compact spaces, and a deviation from the standard twenty-two by forty-five foot loading zone, also that the improvement plan proposes landscaping in excess of City requirements. The Director reported that the staff has determined that the applicant has proposed a good faith effort to provide as much parking as can physically be accomplished on-site, therefore staff would recommend approval of the parking variance as conditioned. With regard to the take-out food operation, he advised that staff concerns are basically with sidewalk circulation and trash generated from that activity, however staff would recommend approval with the condition that the applicant provide adequate trash receptacles and that a review process be imposed that could result in relocation of the take-out windows if' a sidewalk circulation problem is determined to exist. Mr. Baucke expressed concern with the type of entertainment requested and the impact on and compatibility with the neighborhood residential uses. He advised that although no formal complaint had been previously lodged with the Police Department regarding the entertainment at the subject location, a number of informal telephone complaints had been received regarding the level of noise. The Director stated that staff would recommend only non-amplified acoustical music be considered and only during the reduced hours as proposed by staff versus the hours requested by the applicant. He further recommended that should the Commission consider the requested latin jazz entertainment, that the applicant be required to provide an acoustical study that would insure that that type of music would not violate the City's noise restrictions nor impact neighboring properties, and upon receipt of such report, latin jazz music could be considered on a trial basis and monitored for a period of no less than three months, all costs for such studies to be borne by the applicant. . I In response to the Commission, the Director explained that the total number of parking spaces required for this operation would be eighteen, the applicant providing ten spaces on-site, therefore a shortfall of eight spaces. Mr. Baucke advised that an entertainment permit was previously held at the subject location, however is deemed to be legally invalid due to the ceasing of that business activity for a period of three months. He confirmed that there is currently no other entertainment permit issued for the Main Street/Ocean Avenue area, noting that this request is the first to be considered by the Commission since the Conditional Use Permit procedure was established for such permits, recalling that a prior permit had been issued to a Main Street location through the business license procedure. Mr. Baucke concurred that granting of this permit could be determined to be precedent setting. With regard to the standards proposed by staff for control of entertainment, the Director stated that the staff would hope that non-amplified, acoustical entertainment only, with specific limitation of hours, would be within a compatible ratio with neighboring properties. He recommended that Page Six - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . anything beyond that degree of entertainment should be reviewed on a case by case basis, and in the future the staff would request that an acoustical study by a qualified engineer be provided for all cases involving something beyond non- amplified, acoustical entertainment, adding that should there be noncompliance with the City's noise standards or an impact resulting on surrounding properties, it would then be staff's recommendation that the permit be revoked. Commissioner Ripperdan advised that he would abstain from considering this matter due to a possible conflict of interest stemming from his professional involvement with this particular business in the past. . In response to Chairman Jessner, the Director stated the architectural theme of the Main Street/Ocean Avenue area could be considered classic, turn of the century architecture, with a village-like theme. Chairman Jessner noted the Council's direction for staff to implement the recommendations of the Downtown Revitalization Task Force, and referred to an observation of the Task Force that there was a lack of continuity of architectural theme in the downtown area, the Task Force recommending that a certain conformity of design should be implemented, and stated he felt that in recent years a village type architectural theme has been initiated and is reflected in the store fronts of the Main Street/Ocean Avenue area. Commissioner Covington disagreed, stating that no theme has been established, the only theme being the diversity and lack of conformity of design of the downtown store frontages, with no one element, era or style reflected. Commissioner Hunt noted that the conditions proposed by staff with regard to entertainment to be quite stringent, and inquired if the recommendations were predicated on the potential for problems arising from noise, and if it was felt there were, in fact, previous violations of the law, pointing out that no litigation had been taken against the applicant in the past. The Director reported that although formal, written complaints were not filed, the Police Department advised there had been numerous informal complaints, however the exact number was not confirmed due to the time required to research the daily logs for the period of three years. He advised that although it is known that noise violations did occur, that fact cannot be documented since the noise levels had not been monitored. t Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. The applicant, Mr. Corky Gill, 731 Redondo Avenue, Long Beach, advised the Commission that he was aware of the complaints lodged by neighbors to the noise generated by the live entertainment at the restaurant in the past. Mr. Gill stated he has had a permit for entertainment since 1981 and during that period he had experimented with various types of music that would acceptable to his patrons, particularly the thirty to fifty year age group, and compatible with the neighborhood. He reported that during the past several months considerable Page Seven - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . reconstruction has taken place at the restaurant, most importantly the installation of sound attenuating materials, as well as additional flooring and roofing of the patio area, the reconstruction resulting in considerable expense. Mr. Gill requested that entertainment be approved on a trial basis, for light acoustical instruments only with no amplification. Mr. Gill continued, stated that the restaurant will be of an entirely new theme, from the Mexican cantina theme to a tropical decor typical of Panama, a setting that he hoped would provide a family oriented atmosphere, that the landscaping proposed will be complimentary to beach property, and advised the Commission of his willingness to provide as much on-site parking as is feasible. In response to Commissioner Hunt, Mr. Gill stated he would accept the staff recommendation regarding the allowable hours for entertainment, that live entertainment would be possible with a brunch or early afternoon atmosphere, also stating that over the past five years the music at Corky's always ceased by 10:00 p.m. Mr. Gill further expressed his confidence that, with the live entertainment planned, without amplification, and given the sound deterrent construction internally, that legal sound standards would be met. He also responded that had he known he was previously in violation of the law, such violations would not have continued. Chairman Jessner questioned the reasoning for choice of the exterior architecture of corrugated metal siding. Mr. Gill advised of his admiration of two popular restaurants with similar exteriors giving a rustic appearance, somewhat typical of turn of the century buildings near the waterfront, a cannery row style. Mr. Gill did acknowledge that he understood there had been objection to the building style from some residents. . Ms. Nancy Turack, 250 - 6th Street, spoke specifically in support of the live entertainment, stating Corky's provided a relaxed, atmosphere that could be enjoyed with family, friends and colleagues. Mr. Olin Pate, 137 - 12th Street, spoke in support of Corky's cantina as well as its owner, Mr. Gill, stating he felt that the restaurant was an asset, fitting to the architectural style and diversity of Seal Beach, noting that the owner is proposing to re-establish an existing business, add a loading area and ten on-site parking spaces, which he felt was more desirable than new construction that does not conform to Code requirements, and inquired why beach parking can not be utilized to satisfy business parking requirements. t. Mr. Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, stated he was not in complete opposition to the reopening of Corky's as long as there is compliance with City regulations, which he stated was not the case in the past. Mr. Marra reported problems that had existed previously at this location, such as noise, trash in the alley and on Ocean Avenue, under-age persons at the take- out window who, he alleged, consumed alcoholic beverages, and expressed his opinion that the architecture was not compatible with Main Street. Mr. Marra inquired as to the number of Page Eight - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . employees anticipated at Corky's and the location of their parking spaces, stating that even though an existing structure will be removed to provide parking there is still non- compliance with Code requirements. Mr. Marra expressed his complaint with regard to a fenced area at Tom's Corner Cafe, originally proposed for patron parking, also with activities in connection with the sale of Christmas trees, dirt and trash at that location. Mr. Marra requested assurance from the Commission that adequate trash receptacles would be required should Corky's be allowed to reopen. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, stated that since Senor Corky's was a previously established as a restaurant it should be allowed to reopen, however inquired as to the number of in-lieu parking spaces being granted in this particular case. She stated that a total of one hundred twenty-five in-lieu spaces have been allowed to date at a cost of $100 per space, however only $4200 of in-lieu fees have been collected, those fees intended to be used to negotiate the purchase of land for additional parking in the future. The Commission advised Ms. Morton that the $100 fee is an interim fee pending the adoption of an in-lieu formula, at which time the outstanding balance, whatever the final figure may be, for each in-lieu space will be due the City. Ms. Morton voiced her objection to the architecture of Corky's and urged that as much landscaping as possible be required to improve the appearance of the building. She also expressed her concern with entertainment at this location adjacent to residential properties, stating she felt it would be very difficult to adequately sound proof the metal building, and requested that entertainment not be granted for Corky's as similar requests for entertainment would more than likely be forthcoming from other Main Street businesses. . .. Ms. Juliana McCants, 421 Jade Cove Way, advised she was once an employee at Senor Corky's, voiced her opinion that conditions were unsanitary, that under-age persons were employed, working up to twelve hour shifts, and that the business was frequented by under-age persons. She stated she felt Corky's was not a quality business and that the request to reopen should be denied. Mr. Doug McGarvey, 913 Ocean Avenue, neighboring resident, stated his understanding that the Municipal Code does not allow an entertainment cafe within one hundred feet of a residential property, and submitted a petition containing signatures of thirty persons residing in the immediate vicinity of Corky's opposing past activities, citing violations of City ordinances, and lack of consideration of the neighborhood by the management of Corky's. Mr. McGarvey reported numerous complaints to the Police Department due to the noise generated from the entertainment, confirming that the management had not complied with requests of the Police Department or of the neighbors to lower the volume of the music, and stated it had ~een hoped the problems that existed could be resolved without filing formal complaints. He also voiced his complaint regarding parking problems at the location, as well as open garbage containers, offensive odors, and broken glass. Mr. Page Nine - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . McGarvey expressed strong concern even with acoustical music being allowed at Corky's. The Director explained that the provision of the Municipal Code referred to by Mr. McGarvey did allow entertainment through a business license process, however has since been revised to require a Conditional Use Permit with public review for all entertainment cafes, and confirmed that the Code also addresses disturbance of the peace. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, stated he was not necessarily opposed nor in favor of the reopening of Corky's, however objected to what he perceived as special treatment for commercial versus residential properties as it relates to parking requirements, stating that he has found no report or evidence that specifically points to a parking problem in the downtown area, and suggested that persons be allowed to make improvements to their properties without compliance to parking or other requirements unless there is a means of enforcing the conditions of approval, or that a study be made to determine whether a parking problem does actually exist. . Ms. Jane Bates, 913 Ocean Avenue, neighboring resident, objected specifically to the noise that had been generated from Corky's entertainment as well as patrons disturbing surrounding neighbors, and disputed a previous statement that the music always ceased at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Mike Haley, 128 - 6th Street, referred to his long time residency in Seal Beach and experience in the restaurant business. He reported he had managed the subject restaurant and worked with Corky Gill for more than a year on a number of local events. Mr. Haley noted a number of problems that have existed in Seal Beach historically, and questioned how Corky's was granted an entertainment permit initially. He suggested that Seal Beach needs to develop long range planning goals, and cited inconsistent enforcement as a major problem. Mr. Haley noted the difficulty in securing jazz entertainment that would be compatible with the surrounding properties, the ultimate decision as to what groups were acceptable lying with the owner rather than the management. He acknowledged that due to the location of Corky's, it did attract a certain number of undesirable customers and on many occasions those individuals had been difficult to control, stating also that he felt the owner did not possess the necessary skills nor was adequate security provided to handle many of the situations that occurred. Mr. Haley inquired where storage would be located should the existing garage, which had previously been used for storage, be demolished in order to provide additional parking. Mr. Haley expressed his feeling that should Senor Corky's be approved to reopen, taking parking and entertainment into consideration, the City will have set a precedent requiring consistent future decisions. Ms. Tina Mendesavo, 913 Ocean, expressed her opposition to the issuance of an entertainment license to Corky's due to the previous annoyance to the neighborhood, also to the overflow of trash and the disturbance generated by the patrons outside the restaurant after hours. Mr. Brent Matthews, 218 - 8th Street, voiced his opposition to . Page Ten - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . the issuance of entertainment permits to establishments near residential areas, stating the City's first obligation is to its citizens, and suggested that no entertainment licenses be allowed in old town. . Mr. Steve Ostrow, attorney representing Corky Gill and having a minority interest in Corky Corp., advised the Commission that he has recently financed the improvements made to Senor Corky's. Mr. Ostrow acknowledged that problems resulting from noise may have existed in the past, stating however that there had been compliance to complaints that had been lodged, and that there was no intent to annoy the neighborhood. Referring to their request for an entertainment permit, Mr. Ostrow advised of their intent to comply with all conditions imposed thereon, specifically non-amplified music and sound monitoring, reporting that considerable money has been expended to insulate the building in order to minimize any noise pollution. He noted public comments regarding the type of clientele that had frequented Corky's and advised of their intent to encourage a professional class patronage, stating further that Corky's is primarily a restaurant, the entertainment intended to supplement that business. Responding to public comments, Mr. Ostrow reported Mr. Gill's intent to file assault charges against a specific neighbor, stated that the majority of Corky's employees are Seal Beach residents and walk to work, therefore do not require parking, as is also the case with most of their patrons, and with regard to comments regarding trash, he pointed out that a condition of the variance is that a six foot block wall be constructed to enclose trash containers. Mr. Ostrow requested that after the reopening of Corky's, any complaints that may arise be transmitted directly to him. Mr. Ostrow noted Mr. Gill's involvement in community activities, and read a letter from the Mayor dated February 4, 1983 thanking Mr. Gill for his assistance during the period of the winter storms. In response to the Commission, Mr. Ostrow stated that the Corky Corp. was formed in February, 1986, that the lease of the premises has been assigned to the corporation, explaining that the application to the City had been made in the name of Corky Gill and Corky Corp., acknowledging that the City previously dealt with Mr. Gill as an individual, Mr. Gill now being a majority stockholder of the corporation. He reported his belief that the building at 909 Ocean was originally constructed in 1941, several improvements having been made since 1982, and that a condition of the variance is that the building be brought into compliance with the Code. Mike Haley, 128 - 6th Street, stated he did not feel that Mr. Ostrow had been informed of all facts regarding the previous operation, citing conflicts with neighbors, noise complaints, lack of age verifications, alcohol violations, suspected drug use, etc., which he stated the ownership did nothing to correct. Brent Matthews, 218 - 8th Street, referred to the testimony from neighbors regarding offensive entertainment at Corky's, suggesting that should the adjacent neighbors feel it necessary to relocate their residence due to the situation at . Page Eleven - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . Corky's, the City may be held liable for economic loss by the owner of the apartment building. Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, spoke of the validity of the public testimony presented to the Commission verifying the situations that previously existed at Corky's. There being no other communications, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. . Commissioner Covington informed the Commission of his intention to request that this matter be continued to a future meeting for several reasons: 1) that the application for the variance was not signed by the owner; 2) that given the public interest and complexity of this matter, the City Attorney should be requested to be in attendance; 3) that there is insufficient information regarding the change in ownership; and 4) given the absence of the operation for more than ninety days, the non- conforming status now required to be brought to Code, the previous Conditional Use Permits, now void and requiring reapplication, and the change in ownership, clarification is necessary as to how the CUP for alcohol is allowed to continue to exist. With regard to alcohol sales, the Director reported the City Attorney had reviewed the Conditional Use Permit for alcohol adopted by Commission Resolution and had determined that due to the manner in which the Resolution had been worded, the CUP was applied to and carried with the land rather than applied to the business. He also pointed out that under ABC regulations the applicant's license would not be deemed to have been suspended due to the absence of operation for this period of time. Mr. Bauche explained that in this particular case the Resolution, adopted in 1981, was not worded in such a manner so that the alcohol license would be non-transferrable, therefore it was granted to the property. Commissioner Covington moved to reopen the public hearing, continue same until the next regular meeting, and request that the City Attorney be present at that meeting. Commissioner Perrin seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin None Ripperdan Motion carried After a brief recess, the Commission reconvened with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. . REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-84 - HENNESSEY'S The Director presented the staff report, noting that this item had been continued for a period of three months from January 2, 1986 at which time the Commission conducted the six month review of the applicant's performance and compliance with the conditions established by the Variance and CUP approvals, at which time it was determined that two areas of compliance were required prior to approval of CUP 18-84. He reported that the conditions imposed by the Commission on January 2nd, the Page Twelve - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . removal of the garage doors at the rear of the property to allow easy access to employee parking, modification of the location of the satellite dish to comply with Code, employee parking signage changed to allow public parking, and that banner signs be discontinued, have now been complied with. The Director stated the staff would recommend approval of the six month review with the notation that the annual review of CUP 18-84 will be scheduled for the meeting of May 7th, one year from the date of occupancy of the premises, at which time discussion would be appropriate regarding any concerns relating to Hennessey's operation, the Commission then to determine whether or not additional conditions should be placed on the operation, and whether the CUP should be extended on a temporary basis or indefinitely. He advised that a report would be forthcoming from the Police Department for the May 7th meeting, and that public testimony would be appropriate at that time although the matter would not be under formal public hearing. . Chairman Jessner requested that an audit or verified report be provided showing what ratio of Hennessey's business is food service versus alcohol sales, an issue that was discussed during the CUP approval process, the Commission having been assured that the establishment would be operated as a restaurant rather than a tavern or bar, the food business to be fifty percent or greater of total sales. Members of the Commission questioned whether or not this requirement was imposed as an official condition. Mr. Covington recalled that the percentage of food sales was a verbal agreement by the owner during testimony, the intent of the Commission being to insure that the establishment continue operation as a restaurant. The Chairman suggested that such a requirement may want to be considered as a formal condition for such establishments in the future. Commissioner Hunt stated it was his recollection that the ratios previously discussed were based upon the Hennessey operation in the City of Manhattan Beach, the Seal Beach establishment expected to be very similar, and that there was no commitment to a specific percentage by the applicant. Covington moved, second by Hunt, to accept the conditions that were subject of the three month extension as having been complied with, and approve the six month review of Conditional Use Permit 18-84. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried . COMMISSION REQUESTS / ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Perrin referred to a new single family residence recently constructed on 15th Street and at the time of construction the fence was built on the rear property line, noting that the property owner has been advised that the project would not be fina1ed until the fence is relocated nine Page Thirteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . feet from the alleyway. Mr. Perrin expressed his concern since this would require the home owner to relinquish a significant amount of property that could be otherwise utilized, and requested that the Commission consider some revision of the setback requirements. Chairman Jessner requested that the staff provide the Commission with background data relating to the location of fences, recommendations for changing or modifying current requirements, or justification for retaining present Code. Commissioner Covington asked that regulations of other comparable beach cities also be provided. Commissioner Perrin suggested that police records be researched for past years to determine the number and type of accidents that have occurred in the alleyways. . In response' to the Commission, Mr. Baucke explained that current Code requires that no structure be located within the nine foot setback, which includes the garage face, fences and walls. He noted that there is a visibility, line of site issue to consider, safety of a person backing out of a garage, the ability for two cars to pass in an alleyway, and the turning radius into neighboring properties, noting that there is a standard established for a twenty-four foot turning radius to allow sufficient turning area for neighboring properties. Mr. Baucke noted that there are a variety of differing situations in the old town area, a number of properties having encroachments to the zero lot line, a situation that may be corrected in time. He pointed out that currently a new structure is not allowed to encroach to the property line, explaining that in the particular case referred to, which is a single family residence on a double lot of fifty feet, a permit had not been requested for the fence construction, therefore the City was not immediately aware of the fence encroachment. Mr. Charles Antos, 316 - 10th Street, suggested that the Commission consider the potential for liability in the event of an accident prior to modifying existing setback regulations. In response to the Commission, he estimated that sixty to seventy percent of the easterly old town properties have encroachments to the zero lot line, creating a dangerous situation, particularly in the areas where the alleys are narrow. Ms. Michelle Brendel, 204 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard property owner, referred to an ongoing problem of vehicles being parked in the nine foot setback behind a garage, which restricts or blocks access and turning radius to adjacent on-site parking spaces, as well as non-use of garage parking. Mr. Baucke responded that vehicles that are parked in the alley are in violation of the Vehicle Code and could be cited or towed, that being an enforcement problem of the Police Department, noting that the Municipal Code does not address the issue of parking within the nine foot private property area. Chairman Jessner referred to property located at 901 Ocean operating as Tom's Corner Cafe, to which Variance 10-84 was . Page Fourteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . granted in September, 1984, and in accordance with that Variance a requirement to provide ten off-street parking spaces. He reported that as of this date the parking lot is fenced, cars and a trailer parked on that portion of the property, therefore not accessible for parking as required by the Variance. Mr. Baucke advised that the staff has been involved in a code enforcement procedure at this location for a number of months, first and second notice of violation having been sent to the proprietor, the matter now turned over to the City Attorney. Chairman Jessner moved to call for a public hearing at the earliest possible time to consider revocation of Variance 10-84 for non-compliance. Commissioner Perrin seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Covington None Motion carried . In response to the Commission, the Director reported that the City Council had requested that a discussion regarding alcoholic beverages be scheduled at the earliest possible date, other than a regular meeting, and is scheduled as the first agenda item for the April 23rd adjourned meeting, the Donelson item also placed on that agenda, that date being the earliest time allowed by law for consideration of that matter. Mr. Baucke explained that the Council had not requested a joint study session regarding alcohol regulations, however he anticipated that most Council members would be in attendance at that meeting. Chairman Jessner referred to the in-lieu parking program, and requested that specific guidelines be proposed at the earliest possible time for Commission consideration. Commissioner Covington moved to direct the staff to conduct background research, request regulations of other cities, and develop options and calculations for information of the Commission that may be useful in developing a permanent in-lieu parking formula, to be considered under public hearings at the earliest possible date. The Director suggested that it would be appropriate to direct this request to the City Manager's office, asking that this subject be given a high priority, noting that the staff is only acting in a support roll with regard to this particular issue. . Mr. Covington stated he wished to amend his motion to direct the request to the attention of the City Manager. The Chairman noted that the issue of in-lieu parking has been the subject of discussion on numerous occasions, and inquired how matters relating to parking are going to be handled in the interim, suggesting that in order to reach some resolution, the Planning Commission may wish to consider denying any additional in-lieu parking requests pending a permanent solution of this matter. Discussion continued. Mr. Baucke noted that some time in the Page Fifteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . past he had provided the Commission with a preliminary research report regarding an in-lieu parking program, after which the subject was turned over to the City Manager's office for further direction. Chairman Jessner seconded the amended motion on the floor. . A member of the audience suggested that the issue of in-lieu parking should be resolved prior to the time a problem exists, which he stated is not generally the case, and encouraged the Commission to pursue a moratorium on in-lieu parking. Michelle Brendel, Ocean Avenue, questioned the number of in-lieu spaces that have been approved and the fees collected to date. Mr. Baucke stated his belief that one hundred twenty-five spaces have been approved, and advised that annual billings have been forwarded and that the City's Finance Department could respond to the amount of fees collected, those funds being held in a separate account. Members of the Commission pointed out that if the fees are not paid the particular business would be in violation of the approved variance, also that the one hundred dollar per space per year fee is interim only until such time as a permanent formula is established. Mr. Baucke clarified that the fees may be paid in a lump sum or on an annual basis, the property owner rather than the business being ultimately responsible for the payment under the variance that is applied to the property. Acknowledging that one hundred dollars was imposed as an interim fee, Mr. Baucke explained that any in- lieu formula developed will take into consideration land values, improvement costs, financing costs for the improvements, and should the costs be determined to be unaffordable by a business participating in the present in-lieu program, that business would most likely be required to convert to a lesser intensity use in order to comply with City parking requirements, noting also that those presently involved are legally bound to participate in the program. Ms. Brendel referred to the Downtown Revitalization Study, and the reference therein to in-lieu parking, and questioned why the City had not purchased vacant property in the 300 block of Main Street for parking purposes. Mrs. Mitzi Morton, 13th Street, noted that the Coastal Commission will not accept the City's in-lieu considerations because a permanent in-lieu program has not been approved; Mr. Baucke responded that the Commission is awaiting final resolution of the dollar figures for the in-lieu program. Mrs. Morton inquired why Hennessey's is not being billed for their in-lieu parking fees until July; Mr. Baucke advised that the City Manager had taken into consideration a special circumstance in that particular case, made an exception and deferred payment until that time. Mr. Brian Kyle, 8th Street, referred to the participants in the in-lieu program, the largest number of spaces, 107, charged to Grace Brethren Church, Walts Wharf, 50 plus, Bay Hardware, Hennessey's with 23, etc. He advised that in order to satisfy Coastal Commission requirements, Hennessey's, in cooperation with the Police Department, had redesigned/restriped the beach parking . Page Sixteen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . lot which resulted in an additional thirty-three public parking spaces. Mr. Kyle noted that Hennessey's is the only participant in the in-lieu program that has financed the creation of additional parking spaces, also pointing out that the City derives the revenue generated from those spaces. With regard to a development at 320 Main Street, Mr. Kyle stated that if parking can be provided within a specified distance from a commercial development it is acceptable, therefore an agreement for parking spaces was entered into with a church in the vicinity, which satisfied the requirements of the Coastal Commission. In response to Richard Eldridge, 1009 Seal Way, the Director clarified that a business lessee is billed for the in-lieu fee, however the property owner is ultimately responsible if there is non-payment. The Commission also explained that should an existing business under the in-lieu program cease to exist, the property owner remains responsible for payment of the in-lieu fee obligation. Mr. Eldridge noted that the in-lieu program is directed specifically to Main Street, which may eventually require demolition of buildings, possibly residential dwellings, in order to provide land to accommodate parking, stating he felt that issue should be addressed before any additional in-lieu parking is granted. Commissioner Ripperdan expressed his feeling that the only practical solution would appear to be one or more parking structures. Mr. Kyle added his support for an early resolution of the in-lieu parking issue, noting that the purpose of the Downtown Revitalization Study and Task Force recommendations was to create a healthy vitality for Main Street, which he stated he felt the area is approaching. . . Norma Stromeyer, 209 Seal Beach Boulevard, referred to the Commissiori request for a verified report of food versus alcohol sales from Hennessey's and asked that their advertisement for low cost alcoholic drinks be considered as a factor. In response to Ms. Brendel, the Director advised that the in-lieu contracts are available for review through the City Manager's office, and that there is a legal requirement that they be recorded, also explaining that pursuant to recent State law, there is a requirement that such restrictions to a property be noticed in an escrow, the seller and agent being legally responsible for such disclosure. He also stated that he was not aware of any non-compliance with the in-lieu program to date. In response to Ms. Reva Turchin, 1625 Seal Way, Mr. Baucke advised that a lien would only be placed on a property should the in-lieu fees not be paid pursuant to the agreement. Ms. Turchin expressed her views regarding future needs for parking spaces, and the value of present City-owned parking lots. The Commission and staff responded regarding the required dimensions for parking spaces, the number of spaces required to meet future needs being unknown at this time, and explained the difference between residential land values versus public land use properties. A member of the audience suggested that information be obtained from the City of Laguna Beach Page Seventeen - Planning Commission Minutes - April 16, 1986 . regarding their recently constructed two-story parking structure. Vote on the motion requesting that information be provided to the Commission for consideration in establishing a permanent in-lieu parking program and fee formula: AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried Mr. Joe Ribal, Seal Way, pointed out that the issue of catastrophic losses to property is of considerable public concern, requesting that a report be forthcoming and the matter be calendared for discussion at the earliest possible time; Mr. Baucke advised that this matter is being researched at staff level as personnel time is available. . It was the consensus of the Commission to convey to the administration the urgency of filling the position of Mr. Baucke's assistant at the earliest possible time given the limited staff and numerous requests and workload of the Development Services Department. Mr. Baucke noted that there is a priority list of upcoming issues, first of all the alcohol matter, which is anticipated to be before the Commission by mid-May. Mr. Ribal also requested that the issue of building heights, specifically directed to properties where a structure of thirty-five feet could be constructed in a residential area consisting mostly of twenty-five foot dwellings, be scheduled for Commission consideration in the near future. The Commission again cited the number of issues that will be forthcoming in the near future, the workload and limited Planning personnel. Christopher Marra suggested that the State Lands property located at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway would be an ideal location for a park and in-lieu parking. In response to Michelle Brendel, Mr. Baucke reported that the Department of Water and Power was recently issued a demolition permit to clear the front portion of their property, that it is understood they will be requesting qualifications of developers for the site within approximately two months, and advised that the City is not aware of the rumor that a developer for the site has been selected. There were no further Commission Requests, Oral Communications, or Commission Communications. . ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Commission meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:45 a.m. . NOT ICE o F A D J 0 URN E D M E E TIN G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach did, at their regular meeting of April 16, 1986, adjourn until Wednesday, April 23, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach. . day of April, 1986. cke f Development Services Seal Beach .'